The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

Apologies, sometimes its hard to keep track of who has which stance. But even if it is 'just' words you can still harrass and victimise someone that way. Really, if you've been attacking someone through that kind of harrasment and they kill themselves.... it is still your fault. Thats what I think anyway

Originally posted by Nephthys
Apologies, sometimes its hard to keep track of who has which stance. But even if it is 'just' words you can still harrass and victimise someone that way. Really, if you've been attacking someone through that kind of harrasment and they kill themselves.... it is still your fault. Thats what I think anyway.

It's why I can't understand how some people thought that Dharun Ravi should be charged for the death of Tyler Clementi. He didn't push him, or blackmail him, or threaten him in any way to do it. A bully is not a killer. The suicidal person is (to themselves).

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
It's definitely my fault for being a douchebag but if someone kills himself over repeated words, then no I don't think there should be a criminal offense. The emotional are looking for closure and the only way they'll get it is by blaming someone to what I consider an extreme point. But in the case of physical abuse, yes I believe that's considered assault.

Hmm, its hard. I can't accept the person at fault getting away with it because its just words, but I can accept the argument here. I think this is one of those things where theres no right answer.

Think of it this way. Yes, I chose to insult you repeatedly but you ultimately took what I consider to be (and I'm sorry if it sounds heartless) the easy way out. Either way, you made the ultimate choice and I should go to prison for it? There should be sanctions no doubt, but a criminal offense isn't the answer.

If you victimise someone then you're trying to make them miserable. Thats your choice. If as a result of that choice they take their life then you have to live with that consequence. A person should live with the consequences of their actions.

Yes, and I will have to live with having bullied someone who decided to commit suicide. But that hardly makes me a criminal.

It makes you emotionally/morally responsible, but not legally. No one should ever be prosecuted for the choices of another.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
It makes you emotionally/morally responsible, but not legally. No one should ever be prosecuted for the choices of another.

Thank you, that's what I've been trying to say.

So what you're saying is that we can't legislate morality?

Huh. Who'd've thunk it?

Originally posted by Zampanó
So what you're saying is that we can't legislate morality?

Huh. Who'd've thunk it?

Well we can, but then every douche from a coffee shop will run screaming "EVERYTHING IS RELATIVE".

back to the race thing: Whenever I have to fill out race, I select Other, and write in American. If there is no OTHER slot, I select Native American. After reading faulkner on the subject, I decided that some people are "white" and some people are "black" was bullshit. Absalom, Absalom, if you get the chance, is really worth the read, I promise.

Oh look.. The Democrats, in their typical, incredibly hysterical fashion, are using the Trayvon case to attempt to push through gun restriction laws.

I might have just butchered an explanation of the interest parity condition. On a problem set. That is due in like 2 hours.

But really, how many times can one class expect you to recite: "the model says [x] which deviates from reported data because of [a], [b], and [c]." Regurgitation is dumb.

Sigh.

Gun control is a moronic concept.

That being said, Florida's stand your ground rule is hilariously vague and needs to be modified.

A Fight to the Death law should be instituted. Anyone unfortunate enough to be caught in the crossfire of two gangs better pick a side and shoot it out to the finish. CCTV would capture the whole thing, and just like that we've got us a new hit reality TV show.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/03/enhanced-video-zimmerman-in-police-station-appears-to-show-injuries/

the man said "****ing coon" and then chased the kid.

so on one side we have that.

on the other, we have "possible injuries received during a fight to the death"

Now, think of this: even if Trayvon jumped Zimmerman, Zimmerman STILL doesn't get a self-defense plea, because if a man is chasing you with a gun,and you have the opportunity to get the jump on him, and try to hurt him, don't you? Trayvon jumping Zimmerman in the first place could definitly be viewed as self-defense.

So even if it went down EXACTLY like Zimmerman says, he is still guilty of the murder, since he was the instigator.

That's assuming the gun was drawn. If it was still concealed when zimmerman was attacked, that defense doesn't fly.

Also, even if it was, how do "get the drop" on someone who's chasing you with a gun? They were walking down the street, not wandering through some 1980's Terminator 2-esque factory. The only way Martin could have gotten the drop on him would be if Zimmerman had his attention on something else.

Like, turning around and walking back to his truck, for instance.

DS, according to the Jewish faith (or, if you're uncomfortable with representing thousands of years of history, according to your faith) are the laws of the Old Testament (e.g. Deuteronomy, Leviticus, Numbers, etc.) applicable to gentiles/heathens? That is, would I go to hell (or whatever equivalent), in the absence of other sin, just for eating shellfish or wearing multi-threaded fabrics?

I ask because there is a line in the New Testament

For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace. -- Romans 6:14

The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God. --Hebrews 7:18-19

Originally posted by Zampanó
DS, according to the Jewish faith (or, if you're uncomfortable with representing thousands of years of history, according to your faith) are the laws of the Old Testament (e.g. Deuteronomy, Leviticus, Numbers, etc.) applicable to gentiles/heathens? That is, would I go to hell (or whatever equivalent), in the absence of other sin, just for eating shellfish or wearing multi-threaded fabrics?

I ask because there is a line in the New Testament

ALSO:

that seems to moot the OT for Christians. So the Leviticus anti-gay quote doesn't hold water for Christian gays. Would it also fail to apply to heathens? [/B]

I'm sorry, the New Testament doesn't apply to me. I won't debate who wrote the Torah (god or man) but we know the New Testament was written by man. I've never heard of that quote though.

Also, if you want to get a Jewish perspective on homosexuality, watch "Tremble before God". It's actually very sad (even for me) because it's about people who can't help being homosexuals, but also won't go against the torah and act on their urges and are forced to live a life of loneliness.